“Just because scholars who seek to publish in open-access journals are open to new forms of peer review, that doesn’t mean they all see eye-to-eye — or know what to expect. As one sting operation shows, many such journals are unable to reject obviously flawed submissions, even as they promise thorough review processes. Meanwhile, other journals are even criticized for being too much like the traditional publishing they aim to reform.” (via Inside Higher Ed)

Comments Off on Open-access journals confuse contributors as they experiment with peer review models

October 4, 2013Comments Off on Open-access journals confuse contributors as they experiment with peer review modelsOpen Access, Peer Review

“No one can read everything. We rely on filters to make sense of the scholarly literature, but the narrow, traditional filters are being swamped. However, the growth of new, online scholarly tools allows us to make new filters; these altmetrics reflect the broad, rapid impact of scholarship in this burgeoning ecosystem. We call for more tools and research based on altmetrics.” This quote is taken from the introduction to the altmetrics manifesto. And the reason it’s a manifesto, rather than a mission or vision statement, is arguably because changing the way scholarly impact is measured is going to need something of a revolution – and no revolution is complete without a manifesto.”